Should doctors be able to exclude patients from pay-for-performance schemes?

Ethnic inequities in the patterns of personalized care adjustments for 'informed dissent' and 'patient unsuitable': a retrospective study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink

BACKGROUND

In England, general practitioners voluntarily take part in the Quality and Outcomes Framework, which is a program that seeks to improve care by rewarding good practice. They can make personalized care adjustments (PCAs), e.g. if patients choose not to have the treatment/intervention offered ('informed dissent') or because they are considered to be clinically 'unsuitable'.

METHODS

Using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (Aurum), this study examined patterns of PCA reporting for 'informed dissent' and 'patient unsuitable', how they vary across ethnic groups and whether ethnic inequities were explained by sociodemographic factors or co-morbidities.

RESULTS

The odds of having a PCA record for 'informed dissent' were lower for 7 of the 10 minoritized ethnic groups studied. Indian patients were less likely than white patients to have a PCA record for 'patient unsuitable'. The higher likelihood of reporting for 'patient unsuitable' among people from Black Caribbean, Black Other, Pakistani and other ethnic groups was explained by co-morbidities and/or area-level deprivation.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings counter narratives that suggest that people from minoritized ethnic groups often refuse medical intervention/treatment. The findings also illustrate ethnic inequities in PCA reporting for 'patient unsuitable', which are linked to clinical and social complexity and should be tackled to improve health outcomes for all.

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: a sociological perspective on tackling a contemporary healthcare issue

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are increasingly discussed as a significant problem in contemporary healthcare but are yet to receive any significant sociological attention, over and above that which is arguably transferable from the medicalisation literature. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are often constructed as problems best addressed by educating patients and clinicians, and improving the relationships between them. The emergence of tools seeking to support decision-making and to facilitate patients' asking questions about whether interventions are really necessary supports this conceptualisation. This article questions whether significant traction on overdiagnosis and overtreatment is possible through these means alone, arguing that even when professionals and patients may wish to do less rather than more, the system within which care is delivered and received can make this challenging to achieve. Drawing on Scott's (Sociology, 2018, 52, 3) 'sociology of nothing', the article demonstrates that a sociological perspective on overdiagnosis and overtreatment recasts them as issues that must be understood as a consequence of the organisational, financial and cultural attributes of the system, not just individual interactions, and advances a research agenda for the area.

How could the quality and outcomes framework (QOF) do more to tackle health inequalities?

This paper outlines how the quality and outcomes framework (QOF) has done little to close the health inequality gap, and proposes possible ways in which future iterations of QOF could do more to address this crucial public health problem.

Can pay for performance improve the quality of primary care?

Martin Roland and Frede Olesen explore what other countries can learn from the UK’s experience with the Quality and Outcomes Framework

Quality and Outcomes Framework: what have we learnt?

Martin Roland and Bruce Guthrie assess the successes and failures of the pay-for-performance scheme and what its future should be